Tapp into the Truth
News • Politics
Welcome to the Tapp into the Truth community. You don't have to be a listener or a fan of the show to be part of this community (but it helps). You just need to be a fan of personal liberty, a defender of the Constitution, and a lover of the republic that was founded as the United States of America.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
October 28, 2022
The Woking Dead are Still Woke and Still Brain Dead

If you missed the latest Tapp into the Truth then give it a listen now on Stitcher. My featured guest was the CEO of Publius PR and the author of The Woking Dead: How Society's Vogue Virus Destroys Our Culture, A.J. Rice.

https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-tim-tapp-show/episode/the-woking-dead-are-still-woke-and-still-brain-dead-208009234

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Posts
Articles
January 11, 2025
California Fires, Y'all Fired, DOJ Pushing DEI on Kids, & Post-Trudeau Canada

Dr. Carole Lieberman, forensic psychiatrist/expert witness, bestselling-award-winning author, was scheduled to discuss what she is calling a "Terror Trifecta," but she is currently displaced by the Southern California fires, so we talked about that instead. 

Mandy Gunasekara, veteran environmental attorney, energy strategist, and author of Y'all Fired: A Southern Belle's Guide to Restoring Federalism and Draining the Swamp, joined me to discuss her role in Project 2025 and her book, Y'all Fired.

The DOJ awarded and distributed $100,113,942 to over 900 school districts across 36 states between 2021 and 2024 for "education programs" related to restorative justice, social-emotional learning, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Elena Barbera, a.k.a. the Based Mother and creator of the documentary American Groomer, joined me to discuss the question of why the DOJ is pushing CRT on America's youth through the schools.

Leighton Grey, litigator and host of the Grey Matter Podcast, joined ...

January 04, 2025
The Eastman Dilemma: Lawfare or Justice, Bourbon Street Terror & Richard Battle

John Eastman is a distinguished constitutional scholar, attorney, and former law professor who has a career marked by a deep commitment to upholding the principles of the U.S. Constitution. He stood with Donald Trump in the effort to "Stop the Steal" and was then targeted by the political left's unprecedented lawfare. Eastman joined me to discuss his continuing battle against the politicization of the legal system and the new documentary The Eastman Dilemma: Lawfare or Justice.​​​​ U.S. Army war veteran and entrepreneur Capt. Douglas Ernest (Ret.) joined me to share his perspective on the Bourbon Street ISIS-inspired terror attack.  Richard V. Battle, award-winning best-seller author and political commentator, joined me to discuss Jimmy Carter's legacy, the H-1B visa debate, Donald Trump filing an amicus brief in support of pausing the forced sale or banning of TikTok, and the importance of re-establishing truth in the FBI. 

https://open.spotify.com/episode/3CiwupmDPprkaaAE8GgBXM

December 28, 2024
Plunged (The Three Worlds) & Sacrifice: The Deadliest Vaccine in History

When Navy SEAL Jacob Carter accepts an experimental mission, he could never have imagined the spiritual odyssey awaiting him. That is the unforgettable journey of faith, action, and discovery that Shilo Creed introduces readers to Plunged - the first book in the Three Worlds Trilogy. Shilo joined me to discuss the inspiration for and what she hopes the impact will be for the readers of the book. Dr. James Thorp is a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist (OB/GYN) and maternal-fetal medicine physician with over forty-four years of obstetrical experience and co-author of Sacrifice: How the Deadliest Vaccine in History Targeted the Most Vulnerable. Dr. Thorp joined me to discuss the book and why the outgoing Biden Administration has quietly extended a pandemic-era measure that protects COVID-19 "vaccine" makers from being sued for injuries or deaths. Ron Edwards, host of the Ron Edwards American Experience, joined me, and we talked about how Congress extended additional Social Security ...

January 14, 2025
post photo preview
Iran's Military Presence in Venezuela is Expanding
A New Proxy State Thanks To Joe Biden

   The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a disruptive force in the Middle East since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Since the overthrow of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a.k.a. the last Shah of Iran, Khomeini and his Mullahs set Iran on a course of destruction for both the modern Persian society that existed there at the time and their neighbors who did not subscribe to the Twelver Ja'afari Shia Islam imposed by Khomeini. This remains the path the theocratic Iranian regime follows today. Sunni Muslims, Christians, Jews, and anyone who exemplifies the concepts of Western Civilization remain a target of Iran or their proxies, either by open attack or terrorism.

   In recent years, Iran has decided to extend its influence beyond the Middle East, where it orchestrated attacks on Israel and Saudi Arabia and financed terror in Western Europe and piracy throughout the region. This expansion was born out of Russia's war with Ukraine. Russia found itself unable or unwilling to end the conflict quickly. Once the U.S. and most of Europe started sending "aid" and sanctioning Russia, Putin found himself in need of help from friends and frenemies alike. A new Axis (Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela) was formed as a result. An Axis that was, at least on the surface, allying with Russia against the U.S., NATO, and the Western World. Iran had been a long-standing ally of Russia, so it made sense that it would be part of this new Axis.

   A global financial partnership to end the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency, known as the BRIC nation bloc (named for its founding members: Brazil, Russia, India, and China) was formed in 2006, had its first summit in 2009, and South Africa joined the group in 2010 leading to an official name change to BRICS. However, this group of countries was largely unsuccessful and generally ignored by the world's financial powers as it was widely seen as a not-so-veiled effort by China to become the world's dominant economy. That changed in 2024 when China and Russia (two founding members) reached out to other nations that had issues with the various disastrous foreign policies enacted by the Biden/Haris administration, and a unified global financial force was born by expanding the group to include Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Iran (not to mention a long list of countries who have expressed interest in joining: Algeria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Turkey, Uganda, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.) You will notice that some of these countries have been enemies for a very long time and, despite joining this group, remain adversarial, even hostile toward one another. Only the bungling of Joe Biden on the international stage brought some of these people together to work against the interests of the United States. So, "Let's Go Brandon!"

   It makes sense that Russia would want Iran to be a part of everything they are doing. As I pointed out before, they have been long-time allies due in large part to the amount of oil and lack of refining capacity in Iran. There are other reasons, but the sweetheart deal they worked out so long ago to refine oil for Iran made Russia an indispensable partner in the eyes of Mullahs and both sides rich. However, since the 1980s, there is another reason why Iran has become a valued ally of Russia. What most people don't know, despite the best efforts of people like myself who have been telling anyone who would listen for years now, is that Iran has been developing drone technology since the 1980s and is one of, if not the world leader in drone production (especially military drone production). Much of Russia's drone capabilities is a direct result of Iran.

   That takes us to the latest threat that Iran now poses. The other members of the Axis have developed an appreciation of the Iranian drone. So much so that Venezuela opened its borders to the Iranian proxy group Hezbollah, not only allowing them to operate within Venezuela but to actually "oversee" elections in some regions of the country since about 2017. Then, in 2022, Venezuela provided Iran with 1,000,000 hectares of "farmland for cultivation." Nicolás Maduro visited Tehran that year, where he signed a 20-year partnership agreement "on cooperation with Iran in various fields." It seems clear that what Iran has been "cultivating" is a new poxy state similar to Syria before the fall of the Bashar al-Assad regime, only this time, it's within striking distance of the United States. The IDF even warned everyone in March of 2024 that Iran was arming Venezuela with weapons that were "very capable of hitting the U.S."

   Maria Villarroel, writing for the Latin Times, revealed in her January 11, 2025, article that Iran had built a drone development factory and was training Venezuelan military personnel at the El Libertador air base in Venezuela. One of the wide range of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) being produced there is the ZAMORA V-1, used for one-way attack missions. (And by the way, Iran has indicated that it intends to sell UAVs to other countries in the region, a practice that could - and most likely will - destabilize the geopolitical landscape in Latin America.)

   Iran developed its drone technology and is still developing its nuclear capabilities, making it extremely dangerous to Israel, all the Sunni Muslims, Christians, and anyone who does not share their belief in the Twelver Ja'afari Shia tradition within its reach. Iran has strengthened the so-called Red-Green Axis, as it serves its purpose of advancing their belief in the eventual worldwide caliphate. And Iran has harnessed Venezuela as a proxy under the ruthless and illegitimate rule of Nicolás Maduro. All of this happened under the watch of Joe Biden, who, instead of working to prevent it, actually helped Iran to pay for it all. That includes an additional 10 billion dollars in sanctions relief issued three days after the 2024 Presidential election. So, thanks Joe, and one more time on your way out the door, "Let's Go Brandon!"

Read full Article
August 02, 2024
post photo preview
Communicate Like a Pro When You're Not One

  If you are a business leader, public speaker, content creator, or just someone tapped to give a presentation, you will need to convey a message. Your success will be judged not by the organization of your data or the passion you exude (although those are undoubtedly important) but by how well you communicate your message to the audience you find yourself attempting to connect with. The most successful communicators often adhere to a few simple rules. Rules that if you keep in mind, will allow you to add "expert communicator" to your skill set.

   The first thing to keep in mind is who your target audience is. This is not just a generic, common-sense point, but a crucial aspect of effective communication. Your audience is not just a group of people you're speaking to, but the very reason for your presentation. Understanding who they are and what they need to hear will determine the best way to deliver your message. This does not mean 'talking down' to groups you think might have trouble understanding the more technical parts of your presentation. However, crafting your message in layperson's terms may be appropriate. In most professional settings, you should avoid adopting slang or colloquialisms of groups of people that you may be addressing but that you are not a part of, as many are likely to find this inauthentic or, worse, offensive. Despite your intentions (attempt at humor, showcase an apparent divide that can be overcome, etc.), this will often end any chance you had in connecting with the audience.

   The second thing to remember when crafting your message is a direct extension of the first. It is absolutely, one hundred percent all on you, the communicator, to ensure your message lands as intended. Miscommunication and misunderstanding are always a risk. We have all heard the adage, "Think before you speak." Taking the time to plan out your message allows you the opportunity to not only spot grammatical errors but also to root out vagueness or regional turns-of-phrase that your audience may not be familiar with. When preparing, you should actively look to eliminate anything unclear. Fill in vagueness with details, and be ready to explain every figure of speech that you use by adding context. And depending on the purpose of your presentation, speech, etc., test your work with people you trust. It is possible to be too close to what you have prepared to spot this type of misstep. Simply put, personal biases are the hardest for you to see. When it is appropriate, let others help you. Regardless, avoiding miscommunication is not your audience's responsibility; it is yours.

   On the topic of personal biases, unless you are a content creator or you are writing an opinion article, you should avoid being biased as much as possible. (This is an extension of knowing your target audience.) We are all individuals, and while many of us may have similar experiences, none of us have the "same" lived experience. The thing to remember here while delivering your message is "Your Truth is not The Truth," so if you rely on your biases to convey your message, you will lose the parts of the group you are trying to reach that do not share your bias. Avoid it unless you are one hundred percent certain that, when it comes to your audience, "Your Truth is also Their Truth."  

   Lastly, never underestimate the power of storytelling. The human brain has literally evolved to use storytelling to teach lessons, share information, and better remember what we have been told. There are some circumstances where it may not be appropriate to use storytelling as a tool for delivering your message, but that is the exception, not the rule. Proper storytelling will not only reach your audience in a way that charts and graphs never will, but it will also help clarify your points, as discussed earlier.

   We could discuss hundreds of other tips and dig deep into the specifics of when to do this and why never to do that, but if you are not a communications professional, you may never need anything more than these tips. They are the most basic building blocks of effective communication, and while they may seem so obvious, all you have to do is look around just a little, and you will find multiple examples of people trying to make a point but missing the mark because they didn't follow these tips. Making an elevator pitch to investors, writing a social media post in support of your favorite political candidate, or communicating whatever to whomever, these tips will help you be more effective.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Legal Standing: Meaningful Legal Principle or Convenient Tool for Activist Judges

   Before a lawsuit is allowed to proceed in the United States, there is a question that must be answered to the satisfaction of the presiding judge. "Does the party seeking judicial relief have standing?" Okay, so what is "Legal Standing," and how is it determined? The definition is simple enough, but determining who meets that bar is often a matter of judgment of the judge or judges hearing the case. 

   Standing is the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To have Standing, a person must be sufficiently affected by the matter at hand, and there must be a case or controversy that can be resolved by legal action. The judge must first decide if the person or group that has filed the complaint/challenge has been "sufficiently affected," which can sometimes be a simple matter - for example, I hit you with my car while I was driving, you have been "sufficiently affected" by that action - but then on other occasions, it's not as simple - for example; You are a taxpayer living in Florida, and the U.S. Congress raises taxes to pay for a program that will only operate in the Pacific Northwest, the court is likely to find that you are not "sufficiently affected" to sue to stop Congress from raising your taxes as all taxpayers are subject to the authority of Congress as they are operating within their Constitutional responsibilities. If the court rules that you are "sufficiently affected," then you are one step closer but still do not have standing yet.  

   Next, the court must decide if it is appropriate to intervene in the matter at hand. Is there clear, Constitutional law or legal case precedent that should be upheld and would end the dispute hand? Or, is the question outside the judicial branch's or government's preview altogether? Once both of the questions of "sufficiently affected" and "can be resolved by legal action" have been answered, the case may move forward. 

   Standing is a Constitutional principle designed to prevent government overreach and protect individual rights. However, given the nature of determining the question of Standing, an effort to apply the principle in a consistent manner, requirements for Standing have been created in case law. 

 
 

   Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife established three requirements for Article III standing:       

1.) Injury in fact, meaning an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.  

2.)A causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct, meaning that the injury can be traced to the challenged action of the defendant and has not resulted from the independent action of some third party not before the court. 

3.) A likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision, meaning the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling is not too speculative. 

 
 

Warth v. Seldin found that in deciding Standing, a court must consider the allegations of fact contained in that person or group's declaration and other affidavits supporting that assertion of Standing. And when addressing a motion to dismiss due to lack of Standing, the court must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the party claiming standing. 

 
 

Over time, other cases have added more requirements via precedent, like  Associated General Contractors of California v. Coalition for Economic Equity found that when an individual seeks to avail themself of the federal courts to determine the validity of a legislative action, they must show that there "is immediately in danger of sustaining a direct injury." And that this requirement is necessary to ensure that "federal courts reserve their judicial power for 'concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions." Someone seeking injunctive or declaratory relief "must show a very significant possibility of future harm to have standing to bring suit." via Nelsen v. King County. 

 
 

   So, as you can see, precedents have established cover for judges to use their judgment - and personal prejudices - rather than well-established law in making determinations about Legal Standing. This leads us back to the question asked in the title of this piece. Has "Legal Standing" transitioned from a Constitutional principle to limit governmental power to become a tool for activist judges who are no longer content with making rulings based on law? Two recent cases illustrate the need for the American people to ask this question. 

 
 

   On August 14th, 2023, District Court Judge Kathy Seeley ruled in favor of sixteen young climate activists in a case dealing with the state's fossil fuel permits. Judge Seeley ruled that the state's approval process for fossil fuel permits violates Montana's state constitution because it does not consider the effects of carbon emissions. The plaintiffs, aged five to 22, sued the state, claiming Montana's fossil fuel policies contribute to climate change. Their lawsuit cited a 1972 clause in Montana's Constitution: "the state and each person shall maintain and improve a clean and healthful environment in Montana for present and future generations." Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen is planning to appeal the decision and will most likely win that appeal due largely to the question of Standing for the young activists who brought forth this case. 

   It is clear from Judge Seeley's writing, "Montana's emissions and climate change have been proven to be a substantial factor in causing climate impacts to Montana's environment," and "Plaintiffs have proven that as children and youth, they are disproportionately harmed by fossil fuel pollution and climate impacts." that the judge did not apply law to the ruling but rather their own pro-climate change belief. Without a personal bias on the question before the judge, how does Seeley justify allowing Standing to these young people? Even if you buy into the idea that being young somehow makes you disproportionately impacted by the harms of "climate change," there is still the question of "what is the likelihood that a favorable decision will fix the injury." How does making Montana consider climate change when deciding whether to approve fossil fuel projects such as power plants protect these young people when China, India, and multiple African nations continue to use fossil fuel at ever-increasing levels? Plus, what if, after considering climate change, Montana decides that the good of such a project outweighs the potential harm? Based on requirement three established in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife and buying into the general dogma of the Climate Change religion, Standing should not have been granted; the week-long trial should have never happened. 

    

Also on August 14th, 2023, U.S. District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the Eastern District of Michigan issued an 18-page order dismissing a case challenging Joe Biden's latest version of a student debt bailout., concluding that the Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy lacked the Standing to challenge the bailout. This is after the Supreme Court smacked down the Biden administration over their earlier effort at a bailout for student debt borrowers.  

   The Cato Institute and Mackinac Center for Public Policy's suit claimed that the administration violated federal law by failing to produce the forgiveness policy through the traditional rulemaking process and offering the public the opportunity to comment. (Which is accurate and, if you will recall, was the same grounds that Donald Trump's efforts to end DACA were overturned.) The groups also claimed the policy would harm their recruitment efforts, which is how the groups attempted to establish their Standing. If the filing makes it clear to the court that this policy does harm recruiting for these groups and that addressing the clear violation of the Administrative Procedure Act would correct that harm, then all of the criteria for Standing have been met. So why did Judge Ludington deny Standing? Reading through his 18-page order, at the bottom of page two, Ludington simply stated that "the Plaintiffs, in this case, cannot show such concrete particularized injury and, even if they could, Plaintiffs cannot show causation." No explanation as to why he determined this to be true, just a statement that it is the case. Did the original filing fail to prove the harm to recruiting or that a favorable ruling would correct the issue? Or did Judge Ludington not want to assist conservatives in stopping Joe Biden's attempts to bribe voters going into election season? Either way, it is an awfully convenient excuse not to address the obvious violation of the Administrative Procedure Act committed by the Biden administration. (Just as an FYI, Sheng Li, an attorney at the New Civil Liberties Alliance, which is representing the conservative groups in the lawsuit, said, "We disagree with the court's conclusion regarding legal Standing and are reviewing our legal options.") 

 
 

   Given that we are now living in a time where it appears that the Department of Justice has been weaponized to attack political opposition and protect those in power, it feels vital that we restore integrity to all aspects of the judiciary system from the front line of law enforcement to each member of the highest court in the land. Officers and Agents can not behave as if they are above the law; attorneys and judges can not act as if they can re-write the law; personal politics can not be allowed to interfere with the execution of assigned duties. And most importantly, the Constitution must be recognized as the supreme law of the land, not just something to work around in order to get what you want. Otherwise, all is lost. Can we start by agreeing on defining who does and who does not have Standing? 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals